click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
. they also want us to begin to balance the books just like we did under president clinton with a sensible, balanced approach, one that led to increasing wages across the board, increasing productivity, increasing employment, and a budget surplus in 2000 before president george w. bush took over. last year we cook a step in that direction. we cut $1 trillion in federal spending, we don't hear much about it particularly from the other side of the aisle. but what it means is that every discretionary program will see less funding for the next decade, which will have a huge impact on my state and every state in this country. now, if we're going to cut spending on education, research, and transportation to the tune of approximately $1 trillion, i think most americans recognize that the other side of the equation has to be considered. revenue needs to be part of the balance plan to reduce the debt. and the simple fact of the matter is that virtually every expert panel and commentator has said clearly in order to reduce the deficit to a sustainable level, revenues have to go up. it's a matter of
representative cole if we restore the clinton tax rates today than in ten years, 2022, we have the deficit where it should be. >> guest: he is certainly correct to generate a great deal more revenue. if we did that let's say they made for under $50,000 that is a 2,000-dollar tax increase and again i don't think the president wants to do that. he said he doesn't want to do that our side doesn't want to do that. you know, going back to the clinton tax rate, and remember the average american family has taken a terrific hit. the median household income for years ago when the president became the president was around $54,000 a year and is about 50 now. so this portion of the population which is gotten squeezed tremendously i don't think adding an extra tax at the 98 percent is going to, number one, be very helpful to the more helpful to the economic growth. number two it's how much you want the folks to pay? so again, freezing those tax rates with an overwhelming majority of americans is a smart thing to do, we ought to do it and both sides say they want to. >> host: and you said earlier on -- >> gue
chief of staff for president clinton -- "democrats must move on entitlements and a cliff deal. he said we're going to have to reduce the cost of entitlement programs. senator conrad, the chairman of the budget committee, said we need, we absolutely need to enact fundamental reform in our entitlement programs. he was warning that social security is -- quote -- "headed for insolvency" and senator durbin said ignoring entitlement reform is not a responsible approach. to be sure these programs last, and this is a good time to look at both revenue and spending and surely in a senate that works like the senate should work, we can find out how to do both of those things. my friend from wyoming just talked about the death tax, the estate tax. this is another area for all the reasons he mentioned that we need to look at doing something about this tax before it goes back to the taxable levels of ten years ago. there are two million family farms. our farms and ranches in the united states -- two million and 98% of them, almost 2 million, are owned by individuals, family partnerships and family co
president bush, president clinton, second president bush, now president obama. none of those other presidents were treated in the way this president is treated. it's something senate democrats have never done in a lame duck session, whether after a presidential or midterm election. in fact, the senate democrats allowed votes on 20 of president george w. bush's judicial nominees, including three circuit court nominees in the lame duck session after the election in 2002. i remember i was the chairman of the judiciary committee. i moved forward on those votes, including one very controversial circuit court nominee. the senate proceeded to confirm judicial nominees in lame duck sessions after the elections in 2004 and 2006. actually, in 2006, we confirmed another circuit court nominee. we proceeded to confirm 19 judicial nominees in lame duck sessions after the election of 2010, including five circuit court nominees. the reason i'm not listing confirmations for the lame duck session at the end of 2008 is because that year we proceeded to confirm the last ten judicial nominees approved
looks forward to the event. >> this president clinton have any remarks were suggestions to president obama through their golf game on the fiscal cliff? >> for reasons that would be apparent to anybody who's seen me sitting at golf club i was not there and therefore do not know. [inaudible] >> and a president obama enjoyed the session, but beyond that i don't have anything else for you. [inaudible] >> can you give us more detail about who will be here, how many end the dialog does not already part of the conversation? >> the president looks forward to the meeting. i think we will have details on that later this evening. i don't have a list for you. >> in concept, talk about what experience governors have, what is hoping to hear every day. >> governors have a lot at stake in this process. they've been interesting seeing washington get its fiscal house in order. they see action to ensure that the economy continues to grow. governors broadly speaking having an interest in washington making wise investments and rebuilding our infrastructure. they obviously have a stake in our health care
in northern mali at our peril. in fact, secretary clinton has recently said that mali has now become a powder keg of potential instability in the region and beyond. the top american military commander in africa, general carter hamm, said publicly just this week that al qaeda's operating terrorist training camps in northern mali and providing arms, explosives and financing to other terrorist groups in the region. so i believe it's critical that the united states have a strong and comprehensive policy to deal with this threat. i'm concerned that the current u.s. approach may not be forward leaning enough to address all three crises -- security, political and humanitarian -- in a coordinated, comprehensive and effective way at the same time. given the compelling u.s. interest in stability and security and good governance in mali, we must ensure we don't miss the bigger picture of what this situation means for the future of mali, to our allies, and to our security. the u.n. security council is now considering what they call a concept of operations for an african-led military operation. the u.s. c
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6